...this position paper addresses issues that lie at the intersection of copyright reform and the protection of free speech, free press, and privacy. In particular, the paper examines the benefits and shortcomings of criminal liability for unauthorized uploading and downloading of copyrighted works, a notice and takedown procedure for online service providers, a subpoena mechanism to facilitate copyright infringement actions, and statutory damages for copyright infringement. In addition to offering recommendations on whether and how copyright law should be revised, the paper also highlights the opportunities for Hong Kong created by the digital revolution. The paper contends that, if Hong Kong is to further develop its knowledge-based economy and to become a regional hub for digital technology, it needs to define copyright reform more broadly to include future authors, user communities, and not-for-profit organizations.

* Introduce a format shifting exception that would allow copyright holders to reproduce legitimately purchased copyrighted works in different formats.

* Introduce a ‘safe harbour' for innovators to develop products that are capable of substantial non-infringing use.

* Introduce a special exception for the use of online materials by educational and research institutions.

* Broaden the privilege for unauthorized use of online materials for news reporting purposes.

* Explore the use of levies to facilitate private copying.

* Facilitate the use of orphan works on the Internet. (Orphan works are works for which their authors can no longer be found.)

* Explore government support of open access initiatives and new flexible copyright regimes. Examples of these initiatives include open format for government documents, open access journals, and Creative Commons.

* Facilitate interoperability of new communications software, platforms, and technologies.

* Limit the protection of government works in the digital environment. Government works should be freely available for reproduction and distribution on the Internet.

The advent of the Internet and new communications technologies has posed serious challenges to copyright holders. However, it has also created many new opportunities. Indeed, through the use of these technologies, people can now converse with others via e-mail and online chats, look up information in virtual libraries, increase knowledge by taking distance-learning courses, publish social commentaries on their own websites, and develop social communities in the virtual world. If Hong Kong is to further develop its knowledge-based economy and to become a regional hub for digital technology (rather than a hub for only digital content), it needs to take advantage of the promise of the Internet and the opportunities innovation affords.

As in other parts of the world, there remains a very serious unauthorized copying problem on the Internet in Hong Kong. However, the solution to the problem may not necessarily be copyright law reform. As this position paper has shown, many of the reform proposals would incur significant socio-economic costs, which at times have outweighed their benefits. There are also many other effective alternative non-legislative proposals that are not mentioned in the consultation document. If policy makers are to undertake an complete and accurate assessment of the needs for copyright law reform, they cannot limit stakeholders to copyright holders and Internet services alone; instead, they need to include future authors, user communities, and not-for-profit organizations (such as schools and libraries). They also need to take advantage of the research and empirical data that have now become available abroad. The Internet today is very different from the Internet in the mid-1990s, when Internet-related legislation first emerged.

Copyright reform cannot be based on a leap of faith; it has to be based on a careful empirical assessment of the local needs, interests, and goals. A holistic copyright law reform that takes into account of the various stakeholders not only would be socially beneficial, but also would set an important example for other countries that are struggling with similar legal problems and policy challenges. Instead of staying behind or playing catch-up, a well-managed copyright law reform would move Hong Kong to the forefront of the Internet debate.

It will be interesting to see what the government actually ends up doing.

The South China Morning Post reported on Sunday that only 182 responses to the government consultation paper have been submitted. Five from organizations and 177 from individuals.

InMedia and OpenKnowledge are calling on the government to re-do the consultation.
Why? Because not enough has been done to solicit public response.
Their position paper can be downloaded in Chinese as a PDF here. Among other things, they call for the government to include consideration of flexible copyright systems (like Creative Commons)
and the concept of fair use in a revised consultation. They are also
opposed to the criminalization of downloading by individuals,
nonprofits, and educational institutions.

Meanwhile, here in academia land we are preparing out own submission. Intellectual property law professor Peter Yu and Charles Mok, head of the Hong Kong Internet Society, spoke at a seminar here at Hong Kong University last Thursday. They pointed to a lot of ways in which the proposed legal changes would be potentially harmful to freedom of expression in Hong Kong.

In his talk last week, Peter made a strong case that the people of Hong Kong should be concerned about over-enthusiastic emulation of the DMCA. In the U.S. the DMCA has been prone to intentional abuse by those who want to silence critics and whistle-blowers. (For details read this PDF document.) Peter pointed to specific cases in which companies have abused the DMCA to get service providers to take down content that was simply critical of them or which advertised competitive pricing, wrongfully claiming copyright violation in order to get the content removed. How do we guard against companies here in Hong Kong doing the same thing to use copyright as an excuse to silence critical consumer groups? What's more, copying the DMCA too closely here in Hong Kong could result not only in companies, but also other powerful "copyright holding entities" (which is pretty much anybody) using exaggerated allegations of copyright violation to silence speech they don't like. How will the Hong Kong government prevent such abuses? The consultation document does not say.

Another issue has to do with the consultation document's approach to criminal liability. He believes that the punishment needs to be more "proportional" to the actual harm committed. Which means that people who are file sharing and downloading for non-commercial reasons should not be treated in the same way as people who are doing so for direct financial benefit. Otherwise, you are turning most of Hong Kong's population technically into criminals, and certainly most of its young people. What are the consequences of this?

Peter didn't say this outright, but a couple of questions arise in my mind, also unanswered by the consultation document: Might the existence of illegally obtained movies on the hard drive of a government critic be used as an excuse to put him in jail??? What about a journalist who does a hard-hitting, muckraking report? Might she get a call from somebody the night before it is published saying "Greetings. We have learned from your ISP that somebody using your home computer downloaded 100 songs illegally in the last month. (meaningful silence)...."

In Peter's view, copyright reform is not the only way to address the issues Hong Kong's entertainment industry faces. What's more, the digital environment should not just be defined as a commercial environment: it also includes digital lifestyle, access to knowledge, political discourse, and many other things. The government has an opportunity to take advantage of the Internet's promise - and the opportunities for innovation it affords. Not just approach it as a threat to some of Hong Kong's most vocal industries. Any new laws that do get passed need to be based "on empirical research rather than a leap of faith." More alternatives need to be explored. There is no upside to acting too hastily if you are taking the interests of all Hong Kong people to heart.

Charles Mok also emphasized that the consultation document does not adequately deal with protection of the rights of Internet users. Assuming the government here believes they should have some. People in Hong Kong should be entitled to fair use of material for educational purposes and also in the context of political and social criticism. He cites the UK's independent review of intellectual property, called the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, which was much more comprehensive in the way that it addressed users' rights and the question of fair use.

Mok points out that the entertainment industry in Hong Kong is one big cartel. Is it the Hong Kong government's job to protect its cartels? Or shouldn't its responsibility be more broadly towards the rights and long-term interests of the Hong Kong people?

He also points out that if ISP's are required to retain more user data in order to help catch copyright violators, the possibility for abuse of that information also increases. "The more data you keep, the more likelihood of a screwup," he said. Indeed.

InMedia and OpenKnowledge, plus some other groups, say they are planning to organize a collective submission action to the Commerce and Trade Bureau this Friday. If you are writing a submission yourself, they ask that you "cc:" it to openknowledghk AT gmail DOT com so that they can include it in the submission tally of critical responses.

As Sunday's SCMP article pointed out, a lot of Hong Kong internet users are concerned, but so far they have been voicing their concerns in more informal ways, such as this protest video posted on YouTube:

UPDATE (April 25): I don't know how I missed this but Oiwan Lam reports over at Global Voices that a group of Hong Kong netizens have organized a new Chinese-language BBS forum about this issue, article23.net. She writes:

The organizers compared the proposal in the government digital
copyright consultation as the notorious article 23 in Basic Law which
led to half a milion people demonstration in 2003. The BBS forum is to
share information concerning digital copyright issue and possible
mobilization against the copyright legislation.

April 18, 2007

The Hong Kong government's consultation document on Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment seeks to help entertainment and software businesses defend against digital piracy. But it has raised a number of concerns about whether the proposed legal changes might harm consumer interests, put a damper on innovation, and potentially have negative implications for freedom of expression in Hong Kong.

Tomorrow (5pm Thursday local time) we will be examining these issues here at Hong Kong University. Peter Yu, an intellectual property and communications law expert now based in Michigan, will give a lecture asking questions such as: "Do we need online copyright reforms? Can the reforms effectively target the digital piracy problem? Would the new laws create unintended consequences? Are there other alternatives besides copyright law revision?"

Charles Mok of the Hong Kong Internet Society will also be there to comment. Charles recently wrote an article expressing concerns about the proposed legal changes. He believes that the interests of consumers and service providers have not been adequately taken into account:

Although the consultation paper in Hong Kong also admits that "we also have to take into account possible concerns in the community about the impact that stronger copyright protection in the digital environment may have on the free dissemination of information and protection of personal privacy," the issues raised in the paper are all about strengthening enforcement, with nothing about how consumer rights can be enhanced, or how innovation can be encouraged with these measures beyond a simple-minded assumption.

Charles also spoke at a recent event titled "Copyright = Creativity" organized by Hong Kong InMedia and the Open Knowledge Project. (I blogged it here.) I am embedding the video of the entire event shot by one of my hard-working students at the bottom of this post. The meeting was conducted in Mandarin and Cantonese...if somebody out there wants to subtitle the video via DotSub (or any other way), then re-post it to the web, that would be a tremendous service to the community!

Many has pointed out that the consultation is based on the interest of corporate copyright holders rather than individuals and consumers. Worse still, some suggestions within the consultation papers are threatening to freedom of speech and expression, and eventually the development of creative industry in Hong Kong.

Even though a major trend of internet copyright is the adaptation of flexible license system, such as creative commons, which would encourage fair use and free distribution of information within the Internet. However, there is no mentioning of such practice in the whole consultation document.

In the Internet, consumers are also producers; many internet users would upload writings, photos, music and video clips onto the Internet and share with each other. Web-based forums, internet media, blogs, and etc. are significant spaces for civic participation; Moreover, teachers are using the Internet to facilitate their teaching and interacting with the students. However, the consultation has not considered such needs and has not evaluated the impact of old media copyright to this newly emerged public and creative space.

As Ben Ng wrote at the bottom of that post, "it is time for us to establish Creative Commons in Hong Kong and to show our concerns." Agreed.

Jonathan Cheng (now at the WSJ) wrote two good articles about the proposed legal changes for the Hong Kong standard back in December. Click here and here.

For those of you who know Mandarin and Cantonese, you can watch Part 1 here:

April 02, 2007

Both mainland China and Taiwan have active open source software development communities. Hong Kong does not have an open source geek community to speak of. (UPDATE: Tom asserts in the comments section that this statement is "plain wrong." Would love to hear from others on this.)

Both the Mainland China and Taiwan are seeing much more Web2.0 innovation than Hong Kong - which appears to have almost none going on. (This is based not only on my own observation. Everybody I know who runs or invests in Internet companies around Greater China says the same thing: the action is everywhere but here.)

Why? And to what extent are these three things connected?

There are no doubt many complicated reasons. Anybody reading this who would like to add their two or three cents in the comments section below, please feel free.

Interestingly, both mainland China and Taiwan have developed more similar approaches to copyright, as both have chafed under pressures from the United States to crack down on copyright violations more than they feel is really in their national interest.

Isaac and Titan both pointed out that all countries need to find a middle ground between too little and over-zealous copyright protection. If there is too little (which has been China's problem) everybody steals everything and there is no incentive for creation. If there is over-zealous copyright protection (which many believe is now the situation in the U.S. and in Hong Kong) the law is used to reinforce powerful monopoly control over what is or isn't a "legal" creative work, making it more difficult for individual and entrepreneurial innovation to take place.

Isaac believes that the growth of blogging and the expansion of Web2.0 in China is connected to the fact that the Chinese take an expansive view of content sharing - some might argue over-expansive, but he believes that the "free culture approach," and a generous approach in terms of what constitutes "fair use" and "public domain," has been critical.

We are entering a "post copyright" era, he believes. "The past was an era of macro-creation," with cultural works being produced by big companies. "Now we also have to protect the interests of micro-creators," he says. The problem is that traditional copyright approaches - including Hong Kong's approach - tend to protect the big players while suppressing the emergence of smaller players.

Isaac said that filmmakers in China are realizing that letting netizens sample their films in spoofs and fan-works actually helps drive up box office sales. He said that Chen Kaige withdrew his lawsuit against internet spoofer Hu Ge after realizing that all the spoofing actually generated more buzz around the movie and caused more people to watch it. Treating your fans as criminals is bad business in the long run. A middle ground needs to be found.

Titan Deng put it this way: "What's more important? The development of a rich human culture or protection of individual capital? Where do we find the balance?" What happens when there is too much emphasis on the latter, at the expense of the former?

He made this analogy: If you open a restaurant and serve steak, for which you must supply knives, do you put all your customers under surveillance pre-emptively lest they commit murder with those knives?

For this reason, he said, Creative Commons in Taiwan is growing fast. The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office publishes all of its works under a Creative Commons license, as do a growing number of other groups in Taiwan, including several well-known musical artists.

Charles pointed out that the government document never actually defines what the "digital environment" is, though it seems to start from the same premise as the big entertainment companies: that the digital environment is a bad place where people break the law, and which must thus be controlled as much as possible.

Thus, because the government document doesn't approach the digital environment as anything beyond what the entertainment industry perceives it to be, it fails to address any creative or broader alternatives beyond what the industry proposes.

Certainly, a lot of businesses are being hurt by illegal downloading, Charles acknowledged. It's not like the Internet should be a total free-for-all with no law at all. But is a punitive approach - which treats all internet users as potential criminals to be controlled as much as possible - really going to be a constructive approach?

Will that really help Hong Kong economically in the long run? Or will it ensure that Hong Kong's Internet and online media sectors continue to lag even further behind the Mainland China and Taiwan?

Charles pointed out that the Hong Kong government has not adequately considered the concept of "fair use," and how it might be better defined at very least for non-profit and educational purposes. Alternative copyright regimes like Creative Commons are not raised at all in the document.

Nor does the document address the question of how to prevent unfair monopolies, and the use of copyright law by monopolies to prevent competition.

He also pointed out that the Internet is challenging the business model of all kinds of media, and especially the entertainment industry worldwide.

Of course they'd prefer not change their business model. It is inevitable, but draconian IP laws are their last gasp at resisting change. Why should government and law be helping them so much, when such resistance actually holds back innovation and prevents new business models from being conceived, let alone adopted?

Further, Charles pointed out that the government here is willing to criminalize music file sharing, but is not willing to criminalize the use of pirated software by businesses. Why is that?

There was also much discussion of the fact that Hong Kong's ISP's and network operators will be required to hang on to user data for much longer periods of time, and that a result of some of the proposed measures could be greater, less transparent and less accountable surveillance of users - ostensibly to catch IP violators but who knows how else the data gets used.

In sum, Mok's argument is that entrenched industry must not be allowed to dominate and define the entire conversation about copyright in Hong Kong. Other voices must be brought into the mix in a way that is more balanced, not just as an afterthought. Or it will be to Hong Kong's long-run detriment.

Also, one reader has e-mailed to point out that Creative Commons "actually wanted to have CC-HK, but they couldn't locate a HK lawyer to translate the license to make sure it's workable under HK laws." Anybody out there?

Another reader writes: "I don't think the legal aspect is the only reason why Hong Kong is not Web 2.0, the whole culture of sharing, or "web culture". Perhaps you can draw parallels to the lack of culture, after all China and Taiwan are far richer culturally than Hong Kong, people enjoy their time in different ways compared to Hong Kong which is too pragmatic and money oriented." Good point.

Mark Clifford joins the Council as Executive Director. Clifford, who is currently Editor-in-Chief of the South China Morning Post, will assume the position in May. "I am delighted to be joining the Council and building onthe solid foundation that Ruth Shapiro has laid since the organization was founded five years ago. The Council's extraordinary membership and its expanding base of research give it a unique opportunity to help set the agenda for Asia. I look forward to working with Council members to realize this potential."

In my e-mail inbox I find a copy of the internal e-mail to SCMP staff which must be making its way all over the Hong Kong Internet:

I wish to announce that Mark Clifford will step down as Editor-in-Chief of the South China Morning Post with effect from 1 April 2007 to pursue another opportunity. Mark has been the driving force behind the SCMP's forthcoming re-design. He has contributed in the convergence of the print and digital efforts of the SCMP and overhauled the paper's training program for our journalists. During his tenure, Mark played a key role in changes that have both strengthened and improved the editorial operations.

On behalf of the Board of Directors and Management of the SCMP Group, we express our deep appreciation to Mark for his efforts and contributions in the past year, and we wish him the very best in his new position. Please extend your cooperation and support to CK and the rest of his team.

Kuok Khoon Ean Chairman

Mark's one-year stint has not been easy. I only know him socially and I like the guy. I don't feel in a position to comment on what happened over there. I'm sure many other long-time HK journalists will have lots of views so I'll leave it to them. I wish Mark well in his new job and note happily that his remit, according to the ABC's FAQ, includes issues of corporate social responsibility - one of my pet topics!

The results of the investigation (which you can download in full here or read the press release here) actually make sense to me and are generally consistent with my understanding of the facts.

But that doesn't absolve Yahoo! Inc. of responsibility for Shi Tao's case.

The real issue is that Yahoo! Inc. chose (via Yahoo! Hong Kong) to provide an e-mail service to Chinese users in mainland China with user data stored on computer servers inside the PRC. It did so knowing full well that the user data would then be subject to Chinese legal jurisdiction and requests by Chinese law enforcement authorities. They also had to know full well that the People's Republic of China defines "crime" in such a way that when Yahoo! China employees handed over user data in response to law enforcement requests (as they do regularly in all jurisdictions where they operate) they could - and inevitably would - make Yahoo! complicit in human rights violations.

Thus when Yahoo chose to provide a PRC hosted e-mail service under the Yahoo brand, either they didn't care about their inevitable future complicity with human rights violations, or they were not thinking. My sense from talking to people in the industry is that it was more the latter than the former, but that still doesn't excuse what happened.

This is exactly why Google and Microsoft have opted not to offer e-mail services hosting user data inside the PRC. Despite the fact that Gmail would work a lot better for Chinese users if they did so, and Google would probably be making more money in China in the short run if they did so. They have made a decision that the potential human costs - and the costs to their company's reputation - are not worth it.

So what was the Hong Kong Yahoo! investigation all about? In a nutshell:

What Shi Tao did would not be considered a crime under Hong Kong law. Many here in Hong Kong have been horrified by the idea that that a Hong Kong-based service provider may have aided in a human rights violation. The case also led to implied but largely unspoken concerns about whether, if a Hong Kong service provider had indeed shared user data with PRC authorities - and got away with it - the communications of Hong Kong's Internet users might not be safe from the eyes of mainland "law enforcement" who define crime rather differently than it is defined in Hong Kong.

Thus a Hong Kong legislator filed a complaint that Hong Kong's privacy ordinance had been violated, and the authorities appear to have taken that complaint quite seriously.

In its report, the Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner found no evidence to contradict Yahoo! Inc.'s claim in a U.S. Congressional hearing last year and in subsequent statements (including a letter to Human Rights Watch detailed here) that while Yahoo! China was at the time a subsidiary of Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong), the user information about Shi Tao provided to the Chinese authorities came from a Yahoo! China e-mail account, hosted on servers inside the PRC, and was handed over by Yahoo! China employees inside the PRC. Which means that Shi Tao's user data was never located in Hong Kong, or handled by Hong Kong-based employees, and that no data in this case was ever transfered in between Hong Kong and PRC jurisdictions.

Frankly I haven't come across any evidence to contradict this story either, given the corporate structure at the time and what we know about the circumstances of the case. Thus I am inclined to believe it is true that no user data passed between Hong Kong and the PRC in Shi Tao's case and that the offices in Hong Kong weren't involved. There is the open question about what the Hong Kong office did or didn't known about what was happening at Yahoo! China with this case. But then there is the further question of whether they could have done anything about it without asking their Beijing employees to violate Chinese law and risk criminal prosecution themselves. It is also believable that the Yahoo! China employees were responding to a formal request as part of a criminal investigation, that they didn't know the identity of the person concerned, and that they had no way of knowing whether the case was for a dissident or a pedophile or a mass murderer. It is also true that the user Terms of Service (which all users have to click on when they create an account) inform users that their information will be shared with relevant authorities in criminal investigations.

So again, the issue for me is that Yahoo! chose to host user e-mail data in a jurisdiction where the company would inevitably wind up serving as a conduit for human rights violations. They made a choice. Not all companies have made the same choice. It was not something they "had" to do. They have not ever expressed public regret for having made this choice. Now they say it's out of their hands because the Chinese company Alibaba now controls Yahoo! China. Yahoo! deserves to take a hit on its global brand reputation and user trust as a result.

Some commenters on my previous posts related to the Yahoo! Shi Tao case have argued that Yahoo! has the responsibility to maximize shareholder value, and thus could not be expected to act otherwise. But wouldn't shoe manufacturers better maximize shareholder value if they hired 12-year olds at one cent per hour? Wouldn't many companies have a better short term return on investment if they didn't treat their industrial waste and just dumped it in the closest body of water? Sure. But at what human cost. It's called corporate social responsibility.

One silver lining in all of this is that Yahoo! is now sitting around the table with human rights groups, free speech groups, academic institutions, and other companies to formulate global standards for the protection of free expression and privacy by technology and communications companies. Let's hope that these standards will be meaningful, and will help Yahoo! and other companies avoid being complicit in more cases like Shi Tao's in the future.

February 28, 2007

I somehow agreed to be on a panel tomorrow called News Uncovered, discussing how the Hong Kong media covers (or doesn't cover) international news. All the other panelists will be speaking Cantonese, except yours truly, who will be speaking in Mandarin. If you live in Hong Kong and know one of those languages and feel like coming to make fun of my street Mandarin and rusty vocab, feel free. It would also be great to have some folks asking provocative questions.

You may be wondering: I just showed up in Hong Kong. How am I qualified to speak about the quality of the Hong Kong media's international news coverage? When I asked that very question to the organizers, they replied that they wanted me to be the person who brings a more international perspective to the debate and ties the discussion to the issue of global news coverage in other countries.

The one observation I will make about HK news coverage of international stories is that when I have encountered HK journalists in mainland China or in other countries, 99% of the time they are in a big pack. Outside of Hong Kong it seems very rare to run across a solo HK journalist striking out on his or her own on a story that none of his or her competitors aren't also covering. Talking to Hong Kong journalist friends about the reasons why, people say it has a lot to do with the editorial pressures that news editors put on the journalists not to "miss" anything that the competition may have. Journalists are not rewarded for doing original work, especially if it happens at the expense of not being present at the same press conference that everybody else plus their dog and uncle attended. Go figure. (To be fair, Western news organizations aren't immune to such tendencies either, but with the HK media it seems much more extreme.)

I expect to learn quite a lot from the other panelists and hopefully from the audience about what journalism schools like the JMSC might be able to do to encourage better international reporting by Hong Kong's media.

February 15, 2007

There is an interesting discussion taking place in the blogosphere about who first broke the news to the English-reading world of the protest letter against Sina.com written by several prominent Chinese lawyer-bloggers, who brought attention to it, how and why. Here is a full chronology of my actions during the time period in question, to clear up any misunderstandings about what I did or didn't do, when, or why:

Meanwhile over the weekend I received links to the Chinese original from several list-servs I am on.

I see the story on Sunday morning in the South China Morning Post as I'm going out the door for a hike. I make a mental note to find a translation of the full letter - or translate it myself if necessary - later that evening.

Unfortunately I couldn't blog the original SCMP story because it's password-protected for paying subscribers only, and if I copy and paste the whole thing they could go after me for copyright violation. So when I get home that evening I go online to see if I can find an online version of the SCMP story or whether the news agencies have picked it up. The wires had not picked it up. Then I checked the Asia Media site because they often re-run SCMP stories on a site that is freely accessible and can be blogged. However, it was still Sunday morning on the U.S. West Coast where that website is based and while eventually they did post the article, they hadn't at the time I was looking for it. And anyway, it didn't include the full translation.

I look on my Skype buddy list and see Roland online. I figure I might as well ask him whether he is planning to translate the lawyers' letter so that I won't be duplicating his (faster and better) efforts. So I drop him a line. (Roland has since reproduced our exchange on his blog so you can read it there if you are interested in the detail.)

I do some other things then check back a couple hours later. Lo and behold, Roland has indeed posted a translation.

The next day I exchange e-mails with BoingBoing's Xeni Jardin, with whom I communicate from time to time on free speech issues. I had originally e-mailed her about Isaac's letter to Google and she says she's going to write a post about it. I thank her and give her the link to my post about the lawyer letter as well, since it's a related issue.

Xeni does a big post about the lawyer letter and Isaac's letter. I am thrilled that she has helped bring attention to the views of the lawyers and of Isaac, and that I have managed to play a useful role thanks to the help of many others.

A discussion then ensues in the comments section of Letters from China about who had brought the story to the attention of the English-speaking world, and the role that Roland may or may not have played. Daai Tou Laam wrote a post titled SCMP Gets It Before ESWN to set the public record straight. Then Roland published our Skype chat transcript to clear the air on his side.

Hopefully this post serves to clear the air even further, as I am certainly not taking credit for anything in particular, other than being a conduit. I don't pay attention to my blog's traffic numbers. I just felt it was important to bring more attention to that letter by the lawyers (and to Isaac's open letter to Google). I had the ability to do so, thus I did.

This entire sequence of events highlights why it is such a bad strategy for a newspaper like the SCMP to put its content behind a paid firewall.

... SCMP is a gross failure on the web. It requires subscription; its articles cannot be linked to; nor can they be googled! How many subscribers does SCMP have?

ESWN is open to all and linkable. Rebecca MacKinnon apparently picked up the protest from Mr Soong. So did the Time Blog. Boing Boing then stepped in. They invariably point to ESWN’s translation and comment.

It's true that the SCMP played a significant role in the story getting out. But they get little credit and no traffic to their website as a result of their role - which if I was them I would consider unfortunate.

I hope the SCMP's revamp includes opening up their site so that their hard-working journalists will be able to gain the same global relevance and impact that some Hong Kong bloggers have achieved singlehandedly with no marketing departments.

Joining the worldwide online conversation - from which they have so far excluded themselves - is good for the SCMP's business and brand in the long run, I believe. Especially since, as I understand, their online paid subscriptions have hit a plateau and are not expected to grow substantially.

Another lesson learned from this whole episode: Obviously I need to re-arrange my feed reader and move LfC's blog up to a more obvious position :)